Missteps in the U.S. Response to the YouTube Film on the Prophet Mohammed?

[DWill]

Wondering: Do you think the official U.S. response to the posting of the YouTube film has been appropriate? Below is an article by Gillian Flaccus of AP giving background on the controversy.

CERRITOS, Calif. (AP) — While the man behind an anti-Islam movie that ignited violence across the Middle East would likely face swift punishment in his native Egypt for making the film, in America the government is in the thorny position of protecting his free speech rights and looking out for his safety even while condemning his message.

It’s a paradox that makes little sense to those protesting and calling for blood. To them, the movie dialogue denigrating the Prophet Muhammad is all the evidence needed to pursue justice — vigilante or otherwise — against Nakoula Bassely Nakoula, an American citizen originally from Egypt.

In America, there’s nothing illegal about making a movie that disparages a religious figure. And that has the Obama administration walking a diplomatic tight rope less than two months before the election — how to express outrage over the movie’s treatment of Islam without compromising the most basic American freedom.

‘‘The thing that makes this particularly difficult for the United States is that ... we treat what most of us would refer to as hate speech as constitutionally protected speech and Americans don’t appreciate, I think, how unusual this position seems in the rest of the world,’’ said Lawrence Rosenthal, a professor at Chapman University’s School of Law in Orange, Calif.

The situation also raises vexing questions about how far the government can and should go to protect someone who exercises their First Amendment right. In the past, for example, police have stood guard to ensure Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan could march without being attacked for their views.

But Nakoula’s case invites scrutiny because the free speech he exercised with the film ‘‘Innocence of Muslims’’ has had such far-reaching and violent implications.

If the government were to overtly protect Nakoula, it could be seen by some as tacit approval of the film, and further enflame protests. Leaving him to fend for himself could have deadly consequences. There are examples of violence against others who have written or spoken against Muhammad.

So far, the government has acknowledged offering very limited assistance. Los Angeles County sheriff’s deputies escorted Nakoula to an interview with federal probation officials. They did so in the dead of night and allowed Nakoula to cover his face. And early Monday, deputies answered his family’s request for help leaving the house where they'd been holed up for five days so they could reunite with the 55-year-old filmmaker. All remain in hiding.



Department spokesman Steve Whitmore stressed the agency is not providing protective custody. He referred questions to federal authorities, who have declined to comment.

Jody Armour, a professor at the University of Southern California’s Gould School of Law, said it’s ‘‘not unusual at all for the government to step in and give a citizen in distress or danger special protection, but it can’t unlimited. They’re going to have to strike a balance.’’

A 14-minute trailer for the film posted on YouTube sparked violence in the Middle East, including an attack in Libya in which a U.S. ambassador was killed. Nakoula, a Coptic Christian and American citizen who served federal prison time for check fraud, told The Associated Press in a short interview last week that he was involved in management and logistics for the anti-Islamic film. Federal officials, however, told the AP they have concluded he was behind the movie.

Furor over the film has been widespread. Bahrain protesters used Twitter to organize demonstrations that included burning American flags in the nation that hosts the U.S. Navy’s 5th Fleet. Pakistan’s conservative Islamist parties sent out text messages, mosque announcements and made phone calls to bring out protest crowds, including about 1,000 people in the northwestern city of Peshawar on Sunday and hundreds who rushed the U.S. consulate in Karachi, sparking clashes with police in which one demonstrator was killed.

‘‘Yes, we understand the First Amendment and all of this stuff,’’ wrote Khalid Amayreh, a prominent Islamist commentator and blogger in Hebron on the West Bank. ‘‘But you must also understand that the Prophet (for us) is a million times more sacred than the American Constitution.’’

Were he in his native Egypt, Nakoula could be charged with ‘‘insulting religion,’’ a crime punishable by up to three years in prison or could face the more serious charge of ‘‘upsetting national security,’’ which carries a life sentence.

In America, the government can’t even order that the video be removed from YouTube. All it can do is ask. And so far, parent company Google Inc. has declined, saying the video was within its guidelines for content. The company did restrict access to the video in certain countries, including Egypt, Libya and Indonesia, the world’s most populous Muslim nation.



‘‘This can be a challenge because what’s OK in one country can be offensive elsewhere,’’ the company said in a statement.

That’s precisely the point about the First Amendment, Armour said.

‘‘The reason it is a constitutionally protected interest is precisely because it may prove unpopular,’’ he said. ‘‘Words and images don’t just convey information, they are attached to consequences. That’s when we really have to ask ourselves, ‘What price are we willing to pay for that First Amendment interest?’ And these are the times that really test our convictions.’’

In 1975, former CIA agent Philip Agee published a book detailing agency operations and disclosing the names of a number of CIA agents working undercover overseas, Rosenthal said. Even in that instance, the U.S. government didn’t press criminal charges but instead revoked Agee’s passport and sued him for the book’s profits.

‘‘It’s not clear that there is, on the books today, a law that makes what (Nakoula) did a crime,’’ Rosenthal said. ‘‘This is an extremely difficult problem.’’

Indeed, federal officials have said they are looking at Nakoula only in the context of whether he violated his probation for the fraud conviction. Under terms of his sentence, he was banned from using computers or the Internet as part of his sentence.

The probation issue ‘‘gives the government a relatively low visibility way of prosecuting him but not technically for what he said and how inflammatory it was,’’ Armour said. ‘‘It may be a way of splitting the baby.’’

[Saffron]

I am so glad you made this thread. This topic is just about all I've thought about for days.

[youkrst]

A 14-minute trailer for the film posted on YouTube sparked violence in the Middle East

not that there wasn't plenty there already, much of it imported.

sparked is the operative word isn't it, in a room full of explosive gas all it takes is a spark and the whole thing goes KABOOM! but it doesn't seem balanced to me that all the blame be laid on the spark supplier, those who filled the room with explosive gas must also accept culpability, indeed sparks are puny things without something to ignite.

in my observation it doesn't seem to matter to many how many arabs die, 9 in this drone strike, 11 in that drone strike, 1,000,000 here 3000 there, hell they dont know, but as it starts getting closer to home people start getting nervous, which seems to me hypocritical.

but overall it seems stupidity and ignorance are the real culprits, so many people on all sides seem so impossibly dumb and allergic to asking questions and seeking answers that those filling the rooms with explosives and throwing sparks are having way too easy a time destroying life.

imagine if the great sleeping majority woke up, realised they had been played for fools, and moderation won the day!

i have a dream... that one day everyone will see the other as themselves and refuse to follow any encouragement to do dumb stuff, for anyone.

hehe

[Saffron]

I want to tag onto what DWill posted yesterday. I was going to summarize what I heard yesterday on the NPR program "All Things Considered", but it really makes more sense to just copy/paste. I thought they made a particularity interesting point and one I don't think Americans think about, that is how our ideal of free speech is viewed in other countries. For those of us that have read or as in my case, are reading The Righteous Mind, do you see any connections to the 6 foundations of morality? I can't help but think of Haidt's discussion of Liberals relying on only 2 types and Conservatives using all 6. Americans do not seem to be able to see the validity of the claim by those who are offended by the French cartoons and this movie trailer that they are offend on moral grounds. I think and maybe Haidt would agree, that we American's have relegated the Sanctity Foundation to such a minor role in American life that we are hardly able to understand it when it shows up.

For those not familiar with Haidt's work here is a definition for Sanctity/degradation Foundation: evolved initially in response to the adaptive challenge of the omnivore's dilemma (what to eat that won't make us sick or kill us), and then to the broader challenge of living in a world of pathogens and parasites. It includes the behavioral immune system, which can make us wary of a diverse array of symbolic objects and threats. It makes it possible for people to invest objects with irrational and extreme values --both positive and negative--which are important for binding groups together.

So if we see it from the other side -- If an act is immoral, of course it needs to be stopped and even punished. To me it is no wonder this event is so confounding; the start point for each side is incomprehensible for the other. On the other hand, it makes sense that it is a rallying point - These days Muslims must feel under attach and under attach what must a group do to survive? Bind together.

Anyway, here is the piece from NPR:

Noah Feldman, professor of international law at Harvard Law School, talks with All Things Considered host Robert Siegel about what constitutes protected speech in the U.S., and how those views are understood — and misunderstood — around the world.
Interview Highlights

On what kinds of speech are not protected under U.S. law

"You might think that an American standing in front of a crowd should be free to say whatever he wishes. And yet, the courts have always said that if it's probable and immediate and imminent that there will be violence, the police can come and shut that person down ...

"We've developed standards for the prohibition of inciting speech that require a high degree of proximity, and a high degree of confidence, that there will be violence that emerges."

On how many people abroad are perplexed by U.S. protections for freedom of expression

"I had conversations with highly educated Tunisians — people high in the government — who were genuinely astonished to discover that, under U.S. law, we couldn't ban speech like that precisely because any incitement that might occur is distant in time, distant in place and not at all certain to occur. ...

"And it's actually a problem when people elsewhere actually think, including reasonable people, that the United States government must be complicit in something like the anti-Muslim film because we haven't prohibited it."

On how U.S. notions of protected speech differ from those of other countries

"In the U.S., we value the liberty of the speaker much more highly than either the dignity of the person who feels insulted or the state's interest in trying to avoid violent protest. ...

"What's most distinctive from our perspective is that we think that if your feelings are hurt, then that's your problem. We don't believe that you ought to be protected from the hurly-burly of political insult. And that's a very deeply ingrained American notion. ...

"And because we're concerned not to allow what's called the heckler's veto, where the fact that one particular group or person will make a fuss, means that we will prohibit the speech, we've tended to be extremely permissive, and that does make us very different from other countries."

On the cultural disconnect between the U.S. and other countries on the issue of free speech

"It is a deep cycle of misunderstanding, and it should be possible both for us to say these are our values, we believe in free speech while we condemn the substance; it should also be possible for them, of course, to protest in a peaceful fashion. It doesn't forgive the violence by any stretch of the imagination."

On whether an increasingly connected world requires rethinking the "immediate" threat of violence

"And so the question is whether the physical distance [between the speech and the potential violence abroad] really matters. I think probability [of violence] would have to be just as high as if you're facing a crowd, and that would be difficult to obtain in practice.

"But the idea that under some conditions we do want to limit speech because of what's about to happen — and is very likely to happen — is familiar to our law. And one could imagine that, under some circumstances, that might apply here, especially as technology brings such conversations closer and closer ...

"[Supreme Court Justice Stephen] Breyer, a couple of years ago, said publicly that perhaps we needed to think twice about that in an increasingly globalized world, and he was roundly criticized. But one might think that he was, in some sense, prescient. We may have to actually reconsider what counts as incitement in this day and age."

[lindad_amato]

Free speech is a cornerstone of American freedom and I don't believe that it should be curtailed. Having said that, there are steps that can be taken to prevent insane people from expressing every incendiary thought in their head, or punishing those who do so to incite violence. For instance, as a result of the killings in Cairo, the film maker could be held responsible at the least in a civil court.
Should we have more censorship in order to prevent those who censor from committing violence. The answer is a resounding NO.

[Doulos]

Some thoughts on the Muslim violence:

1) It is misdirected. The actions of an independent film maker bear no relation to the government of their resident nation. Muslims often question the linking of 9-11 to Islam overall. How can they assert the latter, and then turn the concept around when dealing with the USA?

2) The videos are offensive, and very poorly produced. Just thought I'd mention this. On the scale of production value, they rate below my children's kindergarten plays. My children's plays were not quite as offensive though...

3) The initial violence followed Friday services. Mosque/Masjid leaders need to take some responsibility for their words and actions as well. If the inciting of hatred/violence is an issue, then it needs to be an issue equally applied to all parties.

4) I'm not sure any administration reactions to the violence would have been ideal. The violence is widespread and in diverse places, and no single statement action could have truly done justice to it.

[DWill]

A 14-minute trailer for the film posted on YouTube sparked violence in the Middle East

not that there wasn't plenty there already, much of it imported.

sparked is the operative word isn't it, in a room full of explosive gas all it takes is a spark and the whole thing goes KABOOM! but it doesn't seem balanced to me that all the blame be laid on the spark supplier, those who filled the room with explosive gas must also accept culpability, indeed sparks are puny things without something to ignite.

in my observation it doesn't seem to matter to many how many arabs die, 9 in this drone strike, 11 in that drone strike, 1,000,000 here 3000 there, hell they dont know, but as it starts getting closer to home people start getting nervous, which seems to me hypocritical.

but overall it seems stupidity and ignorance are the real culprits, so many people on all sides seem so impossibly dumb and allergic to asking questions and seeking answers that those filling the rooms with explosives and throwing sparks are having way too easy a time destroying life.

imagine if the great sleeping majority woke up, realised they had been played for fools, and moderation won the day!

i have a dream... that one day everyone will see the other as themselves and refuse to follow any encouragement to do dumb stuff, for anyone.

hehe

The question you raise for me, youkrst, is why didn't such violent protests occur over the killing of innocents. Why did they occur instead over a very stupid, clownish film (if the trailer is a good indicator) that makes sport of the Prophet? We can at least understand the passions involved when noncombatants become collateral victims. But we, most of us Westerners, are totally unable to understand killing over the matter of insults. To be fair, many Muslims--I believe it would be a majority--can't understand their fellow Muslims killing over this, either.

[DWill]

I want to tag onto what DWill posted yesterday. I was going to summarize what I heard yesterday on the NPR program "All Things Considered", but it really makes more sense to just copy/paste. I thought they made a particularity interesting point and one I don't think Americans think about, that is how our ideal of free speech is viewed in other countries. For those of us that have read or as in my case, are reading The Righteous Mind, do you see any connections to the 6 foundations of morality? I can't help but think of Haidt's discussion of Liberals relying on only 2 types and Conservatives using all 6. Americans do not seem to be able to see the validity of the claim by those who are offended by the French cartoons and this movie trailer that they are offend on moral grounds. I think and maybe Haidt would agree, that we American's have relegated the Sanctity Foundation to such a minor role in American life that we are hardly able to understand it when it shows up.

For those not familiar with Haidt's work here is a definition for Sanctity/degradation Foundation: evolved initially in response to the adaptive challenge of the omnivore's dilemma (what to eat that won't make us sick or kill us), and then to the broader challenge of living in a world of pathogens and parasites. It includes the behavioral immune system, which can make us wary of a diverse array of symbolic objects and threats. It makes it possible for people to invest objects with irrational and extreme values --both positive and negative--which are important for binding groups together.

So if we see it from the other side -- If an act is immoral, of course it needs to be stopped and even punished. To me it is no wonder this event is so confounding; the start point for each side is incomprehensible for the other. On the other hand, it makes sense that it is a rallying point - These days Muslims must feel under attach and under attach what must a group do to survive? Bind together.

You made me think of the title of Haidt's last chapter, "Why Can't We Disagree More Constructively?" He means to apply the question to our domestic politics, I believe, but it also has a wider relevance. Maybe the bottom line is that few of us really want pluralism to prevail. We say we do when what we're talking about is skin color and ethnicity, but coexisting with other ideologies is usually a different matter, where win/win isn't accepted. Considering what Haidt shows us very well about the power of groupishness, I really don't think there's a lot we can do about our feelings that other groups are inferior to ours. These aren't our rationalizations, but our feelings, what our elephants are saying. However, we have a general agreement in Western countries that it is against civilized standards to kill others for what they say, and we can hold this up as an absolute without any apology. We need to do this especially in view of the need to join with the millions of Muslims who also don't believe in killing for that reason. Many Muslim countries are undergoing a very difficult time in their histories, when a portion of their populations are radicalized sufficiently to create the impression in the West that whole countries have become that way.

In this connection, I think it would be a good idea to watch the documentary film, "What a Billion Muslims Really Think," which is based on Gallup polls. It seems to be well-regarded, but I don't know how good it really is. Anyone want to watch it too?
http://www.snagfilms.com/films/title/in ... ally_think

[Saffron]

In this connection, I think it would be a good idea to watch the documentary film, "What a Billion Muslims Really Think," which is based on Gallup polls. It seems to be well-regarded, but I don't know how good it really is. Anyone want to watch it too?
http://www.snagfilms.com/films/title/in ... ally_think

I will definitely have a look, although it will not be until Sunday (Music Festival next 2 days!).

[youkrst]

The question you raise for me, youkrst, is why didn't such violent protests occur over the killing of innocents. Why did they occur instead over a very stupid, clownish film

this article may give a clue to the answer to this question DWill

http://www.informationclearinghouse.inf ... e32444.htm

here is an excerpt

On February 15, 2011, Salafists organized in Benghazi a demonstration commemorating the massacre during which shooting erupted, an incident that marked the beginning of the Benghazi insurrection that opened the way to the NATO intervention. The Libyan police arrested three members of the Italian Special Forces who confessed to having fired from the rooftops on both demonstrators and the police to sew chaos and confusion. Held prisoner throughout the war that followed, they were released when NATO seized the capital and smuggled them out of the country to Malta in a small fishing boat on which I was also a passenger.